Area of a line.

BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Thank you Sarkus for validating my claim. My claim is interesting because circumscribed and inscribed polygons atempt to measure Pi, a corresponding consequence is it will also atempt to measure a 1 dimensional line. Because you cannot construct a 1 dimensional line in reality as we know it you will never truly measure circumference accurately. The area of a line will always scue the calculation. Hence the irrationality of Pi.
Click to expand...

Pi is irrational because it's not the ratio of any two integers.

You can't physically measure a line segment of length 1 either, for the same reason: all physical measurement is approximate. So by your logic, 1 is irrational. But it's not, since 1 = 1/1. So it's rational.

By the way can you please define "positronic?" Last time I heard that word was as a kid reading Isaac Asimov's robot stories about positronic brains.
 
someguy1 said:
Pi is irrational because it's not the ratio of any two integers.

You can't physically measure a line segment of length 1 either, for the same reason: all physical measurement is approximate. So by your logic, 1 is irrational. But it's not, since 1 = 1/1. So it's rational.

By the way can you please define "positronic?" Last time I heard that word was as a kid reading Isaac Asimov's robot stories about positronic brains.
Click to expand...

Am using it like a metaphor since there is matter and antimatter and this universe seems to manipulate matter using electrons in comparison a connected space would use positrons to manipulate antimatter, just an inference this is highy speculative and just meant for objective discussion to reach a consensus.

You can technically say 1 is irrational (context dependent) becuase every number can be described by 1 ...Pi/pi = 1 pi although defined and rational specific desription of 1 is irrational.
 
"One" certainly is irrational.

Why is the
troll.gif
still posting in Physics & Math?
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Thank you Sarkus for validating my claim. My claim is interesting because circumscribed and inscribed polygons atempt to measure Pi, a corresponding consequence is it will also atempt to measure a 1 dimensional line. Because you cannot construct a 1 dimensional line in reality as we know it you will never truly measure circumference accurately. The area of a line will always scue the calculation. Hence the irrationality of Pi. There is more to this.
Click to expand...

That's rubbish. The fact the ratio is an irrational number has nothing whatsoever to do with errors in measurement, due to the thickness of measured lines. It is purely mathematical fact. As this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi makes clear, you can get π ab initio, either from integral calculus or from the power series that make up trig functions, with no reference to geometric constructions.
 
sideshowbob said:
You're the one who made a claim about points "existing" in space. What do YOU think space is?
Click to expand...
Space is context specific I believe it's just another feature of the gravitational field. And everything known and unknown originates from the gravitational field all before and after sections of the gravitational is just an evolution of itself.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Am using it like a metaphor since there is matter and antimatter and this universe seems to manipulate matter using electrons in comparison a connected space would use positrons to manipulate antimatter, just an inference this is highy speculative and just meant for objective discussion to reach a consensus.
Click to expand...
How in the hell are we suppose to discuss something like "this universe seems to manipulate matter using electrons".

I will try to discuss.

Tangent armadillos in a pillow fight often chide Falabella horses.
What do you think?
 
exchemist said:
That's rubbish. The fact the ratio is an irrational number has nothing whatsoever to do with errors in measurement, due to the thickness of measured lines. It is purely mathematical fact. As this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi makes clear, you can get π ab initio, either from integral calculus or from the power series that make up trig functions, with no reference to geometric constructions.
Click to expand...
But it's prime principals is still derived from the same origin. It's just adressing it from a different and more specific context.
 
The troll has fallen back to the "Prove me wrong!" stance in the face of an obviously false premise. It ignores 1,000 years of geometry, then vomits up some fetid goo about "positronium universes".

I ask again. Moderators: Please take out the trash.
 
someguy1 said:
Pi is irrational because it's not the ratio of any two integers.

You can't physically measure a line segment of length 1 either, for the same reason: all physical measurement is approximate. So by your logic, 1 is irrational. But it's not, since 1 = 1/1. So it's rational.

By the way can you please define "positronic?" Last time I heard that word was as a kid reading Isaac Asimov's robot stories about positronic brains.
Click to expand...

I read it first as postironic, i.e. a rather pseud literary term.:D
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
But it's prime principals is still derived from the same origin. It's just adressing it from a different and more specific context.
Click to expand...

Yes, the origin being the relation between the arc traced by a vector being rotated and its projection onto an axis, or something equivalent.

But nothing to do with line thickness, which is what you claimed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top